Latest Pajama’s Article Is Up: Shame On John McCain & Random Related Thoughts On God And Folksiness
Wednesday, November 12th, 2008Hi all, you’ve read it here first, but I expanded the article about John McCain not defending Sarah Palin for Pajama’s Media. Well, today in passing, I heard snippets from a John McCain interview where McCain put forth his defense. Finally. It’s too little, too late.
He also said something in his half-joking manner that didn’t sound joking at all. When asked if Sarah went “off-message”, he responded with a heh heh heh and said something to the effect “Mavericks go off message, that’s what they do.” A couple thoughts: John McCain didn’t have a coherent message to deviate from. Not one person I have spoken to could articulate his economic message. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for his Vice Presidential candidate to find the message and then trumpet it?
Also, enough with the “Maverick” talk. Sarah Palin needs to knock it off, too. This is not a Western movie. People get it. You’re reformers who piss off your own party. That’s nice. I would like a reformer who managed to reform the whole mess not just incite the wrath of those who will be voting for you.
Finally, I understand what bugs moderates and even some Republican faithful about both John McCain and Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, well, hell, and George W. Bush, too. It’s the folksy chumminess that seems hackneyed and manipulative. Now, in GW and Sarah Palin’s case, I feel that they are being utterly authentic. In McCain and Huck’s case, I feel that they are being hokey and not a little hostile–like they are playing a part they know plays well with a certain set.
What many Republicans, Moderates and Independents hunger for is a small-government candidate who spares us the Jesus talk. To many ears, it reeks of sanctimony and superficiality. It is a relatively new phenomenon. Hold on a minute, before you blast me. I realize that Christianity has informed the culture of this country from the founding. Different states. Different religions. Yada. Yada. Throughout our country’s history, presidents as diverse as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan have invoked God in speeches. God in public discourse is nothing new. What is new, is the modern evangelical movement. Where I grew up, two things didn’t get talked about publicly: God or money. Outward showiness of either seemed unseemly.
It is still unseemly to talk about money (or rather, how in debt everyone is), but God has come out of the closet in the evangelical community. I have mixed emotions about it. On the one hand, I’m innately suspicious of anyone who makes these statements, “The Lord led (told, spoke to, etc.) me to fill-in-the-blank” or “Jesus would have……” or “God says….”. On the other hand, the religiosity of evangelicals that I know is inclusive and rather benign. Far from being the judgmental churches of yore, they are embracing, self-revelatory and humble. They are also comfortable with talking openly about their walk with Jesus. I’m not. I’m just not. When pressed to defend my faith, I will, but I’m not comfortable with effusive proclamations. It’s philosophical more than anything, and maybe a bit cultural. I like to see evidence of the walk and hear less of the talk.
There are many good people who have uncomfortable relationships with God or doubt or disbelieve. Many of these people deeply desire to make a positive difference in their families, their jobs, their community and their country. These people may never talk about their faith or they may believe that religious people are simple-minded yutzes, but I want them to feel comfortable voting for a Republican candidate, too.
That is not to say that a Republican who is an evangelical should hide his or her beliefs. What people hunger for, I think, is authenticity. Much will be forgiven if a candidate is real.
This conversation wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t mention the press in all this. The press are a secular, skeptical bunch. Most are ignorant of and have no interest in any religion which is why they can so cavalierly conflate mainstream Christianity with extremist Islamofascism. (There is an obvious difference in a culture that promotes life and one that promotes death. Who is simple-minded again?) So the press attacks anyone who even mentions God. Their attempts to marginalize signifies a narrow-mindedness seeking to control public discourse. This is why I defended Christians the other day. Everyone is entitled to free speech–even those the Left don’t like.
Still, I understand why some people feel uncomfortable. In the Republican party’s attempt to represent the majority, which I believe they do, politicians would be wise to realize the power of their language. Words have power. Since God is the Greatest Power, any language about Him should be used with humility and caution.
Oh, and the content of the Pajama’s Media McCain article is here.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews and the Houston Chronicle
Hypocritical Christians Who Support The Palins–UPDATED “What we did as teens”
Monday, September 8th, 2008The Anchoress writes today about the charge that those who hold that the Christian ideal of virginity and also support Bristol Palin reveal themselves to be hypocrites:
Listen: chastity is the ideal; of course it is the ideal, and it is an achievable one, but only if it is understood as valuable, to start with. If you believe – as I do – that a hymen is more than a meaningless membrane, but part of a plan, one that reflects the blood-covenant made between God and the Jews, and between Christ and the whole world, then you see value there, and you try to raise your children to understand it, and to strive for the ideal.
But an ideal is an ideal. It the “best” way; that doesn’t mean that anyone who fails the ideal is a bad person. It means they’re human and in need of mercy – like everyone else.
So, the ideal is to be chaste until marriage, marry for love, be faithful, have children, stay married until death parts the couple. That’s the ideal. It is also ideal to abstain from murder, thieving, coveting, arrogance, hate, lust and all the other sins of spirit and deed. A better world would be ours if all people held to these ideals.
The world is not perfect. The people who make this world are fallen. They are human. Lost.
Lost people like lost sheep call for a savior and a shepherd who can guide them back to safety. Christianity is about recognizing that all are lost, but all have hope because all can be found. They just need to admit that Christ is the shepherd and follow.
Inherent in Christian Theology is the acknowledgment of human fallibility. While each church has its amen pew and church ladies and self-righteous cohort, my experience with Christians generally is that they’re a sensible bunch and rather practical-minded for all the talking and preaching of struggling for an ideal.
Unfortunately, Christianity has been identified with fringers. Of course, that’s convenient for the incurious and secular who wish to lump religion generally into a group of unthinking, dangerous extremists. So, without irony, a writer can say Christianist making the moral equivalence with an Islamist when it’s patently absurd.
The Anchoress says:
You have never really known us. And that is partly our fault; we have not always been comprehensible or appealing communicators of our ideals and our mercies.
Mercy is not difficult. It is the great leveler, actually. When a heart at least partially attuned to mercy, even slightly open to it, then the more generous impulses are allowed out. You can see it, occasionally, even in the hot-blooded political blogosphere, a desire to be just, to have mercy and write the fair, thoughtful line. Mercy and Justice sort of go hand-in-hand.
Justice, mercy and faith go hand in hand. In order to have mercy, you have to first know the law and the just reward for the law. Most people deserve condemnation for something if one looks closely enough. As anyone sitting in jail will tell you, the law is a harsh master. Mercy demonstrates an understanding of justice. Mercy is the space between what is deserved and what is forgiven in humility.
And then there’s faith. The self-inflicted and other-inflicted sorrow in this world seems unfair and unjust. Some wrongs seem so undeserving of mercy and yet no justice happens. This is where faith enters. Ultimately, a Christian trusts that God will make things right.
A humanist will see this as an out, but really, it’s a peace. The humanist is no more capable of righting every wrong than the Christian, though both can try. Only the Christian has the contentment that the One who sees all and knows all has a plan and a purpose and will ultimately make things right on His time table.
Far from being hypocritical, Christians demonstrate an innate tolerance. It’s difficult to be a Christian and ignore the words “he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
So, if the press and the left expect harsh, judgmental Christian evangelicals to stone the Palin family, they’ll be disappointed. A Christian imagines his own sins being displayed, dissected, written about and shown non-stop on national television and shudders. It’s called humility.
True Christians hold the ideal, preach it, and work very hard at getting the mote out of their own eyes to attempt to live the ideal knowing full well they will fall short.
UPDATE: Maxed Out Mama has more practical reasons why reasonable people aren’t all upset about Bristol Palin’s pregnancy.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews
Obama v. McCain Debate with Rick Warren
Saturday, August 16th, 2008If you’re interested, John Hawkins live blogged it. I have an opinion about the larger context, but I’ll save that for later.
Barack: Maybe America Will Leave My Church Alone–UPDATED
Saturday, May 31st, 2008I know that it’s wrong to laugh at someone for being stupid, but I can’t help it. Barack Obama has been so damn dense about his church affiliation and how it plays with Americans of a different color than him. And now, finally, even he’s had it. You show ‘em Barack!
I guess he’s willing to trade the 3,000 disgruntled church votes for the multiple thousands he’s lost over the last few months due to his resolute deafness. His speechifying didn’t work. The message that average white people heard was racism, because what white people thought was this, “If a white person said about black people what that black preacher just said about white people, there’d be outrage.” And rightfully so, by the way. But a black man can hate white people and it’s okay? And Barack Obama thought it was okay to defend this behavior?
Karl at Protein Wisdom says:
Moss is fully devoted to Trinity’s program of Black Liberation Theology, and on Good Friday compared the scrutiny of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s race-baiting and conspiracy theory-mongering to a “public lynching.” As part of the hip-hop generation, Moss calls himself “a theological DJ” — and in one sermon alluded to an Ice Cube rap titled, “Wrong N-gga to f— with.” It includes the lyrics “F— America, still with the triple K” and it uses the spelling “AmeriKKKa.” Last month, Obama said this:
Well, you know, the new pastor — the young pastor, Reverend Otis Moss, is a wonderful young pastor. And as I said, I still very much value the Trinity community.
This is the community which can be seen hooting their approval of the remarks made by Wright and Pfleger.
Black Liberation Theology devotee Dwight Hopkins predicted that Obama’s resignation would not have a lasting impact on this “community”:
“They didn’t come there because of Obama,” Hopkins said. “They came there because of the House that Wright that built. And it’s still standing.”
Obama went there for the same reason — and will not denounce those who stay with the church of the poisoned mind.
So the Obamas are leaving the church not because the church is a zit on the ass of Christianity filled with racist puss but because American humanity is being a zit on the church. The church is fine, but persecuted, by the American press, maybe now that Obama leaves, the church will be let alone.
Or, maybe Obama hopes that his 20-year membership at that racist place will be forgotten. Don’t bet on it Barry. The damage was done a long time ago and I don’t think this is gonna fix it.
You know, no wonder Hillary hangs around. She’s counting not on an assassination, but a suicide, politically speaking. Plus, go look at this picture. It’s terrifying on so many levels.
UPDATED:
Ha! Don Surber calls him “Slowbama“.
On Karma
Wednesday, May 28th, 2008In my last post I asked, “how am I going to sleep with my blood pressure this high?” The answer: I’m not. So what to do but come up with more spleen venting for my beloved readers. Now, we’ve already established that I’m thoroughly pissed off and it’s probably a truism that one should not drive while intoxicated nor blog while infuriated, but hey, I live on the edge, baby. So here goes….
Rachel Lucas discusses Karma–you know, what goes around comes around–and flaming fucknozzles. Go read for yourself, but she makes an interesting point:
I’m sure the 80,000 dead people got their just desserts for personally not being nice to the Dalai Lama. He’s a friend of Sharon’s! You be NICE, peasants! Or karma will destroy you and everything you own.
Technically, Karma’s force follows you into the next life, according to Webster, thus Al Gore will be coming back as a bloated dung beetle next time around (what could be better energetically speaking?):
the force generated by a person’s actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence
Anyway, what most dillweeds use as Karma they usually meld with the biblical parable of reaping and sowing ala Galatians 6:7 and they get both wrong:
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature[a]will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
And still, this is ultimate judgment. As in, a scumbag can prance through life pretty much unscathed and still get it in the afterlife. In this life, shit happens to everyone. (Matthew 5:45) Ecclesiastes 9:11 says it best:
I saw something else under the sun. The race isn’t [won] by fast runners, or the battle by heroes. Wise people don’t necessarily have food. Intelligent people don’t necessarily have riches, and skilled people don’t necessarily receive special treatment. But time and unpredictable events overtake all of them.
Shit. Happens. Deal. With. It.
Now some people (my friend’s ex-husband) are such assholes that their actions repeatedly reap asshole consequences (getting fired over and over and over). Is that Karma? Is that God’s hand? I think it’s just being an asshole and people hating you.
This idea causes people discomfort. Christians often say “God willing” as some sort of mantra. Muslims say “insh’allah” (if Allah wills). Mexicans say “manana”. Oh wait, that means tomorrow. Bottom line, too many people wait around as an excuse to not take responsibility for where their life is now. They wait so they came blame God if things don’t go right.
And at the other end of the spectrum, New Agers believe that everything in the universe, big “U”, is a function of the person’s beliefs. Reality itself bends to our own personal will. So, the Chinese people, on some level wanted or believed they deserved this earthquake and the earthquake manifested. Ditto the people of Myanmar. And in that case, the people believed bad Karmic actions happened and were manifested.
I’m rereading a book by Louise Hay, You Can Heal Your Life which is a precurser to The Secret. A mentor suggested I read it when I was in college and I did and I thought it was unmitigated crap. Well, age and life experiences can moderate our perspective and a friend suggested I read it again. Here’s the essence of the book, summed up in the first sentence of the first chapter:
Life is really very simple. What we give out, we get back.
And,
We are 100% responsible for all our experiences.
And by all, Ms. Hay means all. Even the abuse you took as a kid, on some level, you’re responsible for. The earthquake in China, the people are responsible for. The cyclone in Myanmar, the people are responsible for. The Holocaust, the Jewish people are responsible for. The ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, the people are responsible for. And on and on… This seems patently absurd. Shit doesn’t just happen, people want shit to happen so it happens.
This thought process misses a tiny distinction: rather than responsibility for all experiences, after a certain age, we are responsible for our reaction to all our experiences. That is, how we interpret and respond to our experiences is our responsibility, but owning every experience takes away the free will of all the other people around. It makes no sense. And this warped thinking has infected the brains of far too many people and it has real world consequences. Ironically, the philosophy of God micromanaging isn’t so far from the individual (we are all God) micromanaging life–we are under no obligation to do anything because nothing is in our control on the one hand or we only control our own experience on the other. Either way, everyone else is on their own–either God will take care of it or the poor sufferer will. And in the Western world, where many don’t suffer much at all, the all-consuming god-self-complex means taking everything on because the world will fall apart if my caring action isn’t taken right now!
Dumbasses like Sharon Stone contemplate the un-niceness of leaders rather than dip into their significant pile of dough when people are dying of misery because they are morally obtuse and hide their selfishness in psychobabble religion. It seems self-evident that you reach out and help people who need help whether you like their leaders’ political positions or not. The people have nothing, absolutely zip, to say about Mother Nature’s wrath. And the Chinese people have nearly zip to say about their communist government. They do what they are told which is why they’re so pissed about their one-child policy. Scores of thousands of people are childless now, because of the earthquake and because of their government’s policies. Part of this is time and chance; part of this is stupid.
Louise Hay is right about one thing: we create beliefs and live our lives based on these beliefs. So now, people make decisions based on some swirling mix of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Global Warming and psychology with little understanding of any of these religions and no understanding of science. The end result is do-nothing, feel-good, Selfism. Yes, I believe that’s a new word and even if it’s not, here’s my definition: Selfism has one tenet–I am right because I care.
If Selfism sounds a lot like liberalism, you’ve hit the jackpot. It’s not about actions. It’s not about measurable outcomes. It’s not about results. It’s not about facts. It’s not about objective reality. It’s not about truth. It’s about feelings. It’s about intent. It’s about words. It’s about subjective experience. It’s about my truth.
Karma in Sanskrit means action. It is what a person does that results in their placement for the next life. It’s not how good-intentioned a person was. And this is a very Christian concept, too. Matthew 25:35-46 is well-worth reading. In fact, the whole chapter isn’t about sitting on your butt waiting, but getting out there and doing. A Christian is known by his fruits…what he does–mostly what he does for others and what he does with what he is given.
Nature abhors a vacuum. And in the vacuum that has become the Western world’s secular soil all sorts of peculiar ideologies are sprouting up and the unifying theme is narcissism. Selfism is a very popular religion.
Finding The Courage To Fight–UPDATE
Monday, May 26th, 2008Residents find the courage to fight the Mormans. Now, substitute Muslim for Morman through this whole article and see what you think.
Update: Knowledge of Islam makes fighting it easier. (Via Instapundit)
Polygamists Might Get Their Kids Back
Thursday, May 22nd, 2008
A Texas appellate court says that the removal of the kids from their moms is unlawful. I wonder if that means the 15 year old moms married to 50 year old men, too. Holy f*ck what a disgusting mess. There is just something about seeing these moronic Little House on the Prairie women running out of the courthouse that pisses me off. You don’t have to dress like Britney Spears to be in the culture but not of the culture. According to the New York Times:
The ruling asserted that the state’s child protection agency acted hastily in removing the children from the Yearning for Zion ranch in April and did not make a reasonable effort “to ascertain if some measure short of removal and/or separation from parents would have eliminated the risk” of abuse toward the children of 48 mothers who filed the suit. The district court was ordered to remove its restraining order giving the state custody of those children, but it was not immediately clear how the hundreds of other children, now in foster care, would be affected.
Using religion as a cloak for pedophilia prone middle aged men grates (link via Maggie’s Farm). I want those kids back in that situation like I want boils on my feet. But I’m just not sure about the best environment for these kids… And while it seems excessive to lump all 400+ kids in the abused category, it seems equally excessive to lump all the kids into the everything-is-hunky-dory category. (Which isn’t the case, I guess this ruling only applies to 38 kids.)
Forget the abuse, isn’t polygamy illegal in Texas? And why don’t we prosecute them? And say the kids aren’t “abused”, what of the rest of it? And does this case mean the state will go after Muslims practicing polygamy?
And yes, I see the implications for parents worried about their kids being yanked away on the “evidence” of one anonymous phone call. I recognize that some kids suffer because the greater good is the presumption of innocence and sanctity of the family relationship.
What a mess.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News.
Someday…..
Tuesday, May 20th, 2008…….when I make it big, I’m gonna get to post a post like this. Just. Wow.
Rational Christians
Thursday, May 8th, 2008It is possible to be Christian and be rational, but Rachel Lucas didn’t used to think so. She talks about her experience with C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, a book I love. It’s an interesting read.
"Science is a wonderful servant and a terrible master."
Wednesday, May 7th, 2008Dan Collins said it well. Technology and science gallops without bit, without restraint. Restraint used to come in the form of Christian ethics, but as society becomes increasingly secular, restraint is being cast off. So what force will guide the horse?
I have written before how science is so politicized, and I’m not talking about by crazed right-wingers intent on stopping the march of progress. No, the politicization of science is at the hands of leftists intent on forcing outcomes that are politically correct. Here is the essence:
Levin summarizes the liberal promise this way: “The past was rooted in error and prejudice while the future would have at its disposal a new oracle of genuine truth.”
Science as “genuine truth”. Color me terrified.
Let me tell you some things that were accepted as “genuine truth” in the field of medical science and have since been debunked:
Frontal Lobotomies: A personal story here. And look at what intellectuals bought into it.
Sensory Deprivation for Autism: A personal view here.
Hormone Replacement Therapy for menopausal women. Oops! Causes cancer.
Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: Uh oh, it’s just a placebo.
The list is long. I’m sure you could come up with more. I could, I just decided to stop. My point is that science is evolving. What is scientific “truth” today is tomorrow’s discarded notion.
Christianity, on the other hand, has fixed principles that form the foundation of ethical behavior. I am taking, as a premise, that what we view as modern day ethics are Christian ethics. That’s an easy one to prove–substitute Muslim ethics or Hindu ethics. They’d be a wee bit different, no? But I’m not going to get into that right now.
What the liberals hope for is ideological purity and science can form the foundation for that purity. That’s why the Global Warming zealots are so zealous. They bring the same fervor to idealizing modern science that the zealous bring to worshiping The Ideal. It’s a tad disturbing. Science will change tomorrow. A new notion of truth will come along because new science will reveal a more complete picture. But the liberal zealots assume that the picture they currently see is the only one that will ever exist and make decisions based on today’s knowledge. It’s the height of vanity.
Unrestrained by overarching principles, science can go anywhere and will. Some will embrace this, but science unrestrained by ethics takes mankind to dark places as Michael Gerson notes:
These arguments are seriously made, but they are not to be taken seriously. Does anyone really believe in a science without moral and legal limits? In harvesting organs from prisoners? In systematically getting rid of the disabled?
This last question, alas, does not answer itself. In America, the lives of about nine of 10 children with Down syndrome are ended before birth. In Europe, about 40 percent of unborn children with major congenital disorders are aborted.
All of which highlights a real conflict, a war within liberalism between the idea of unrestricted science in the cause of health and the principle that all men are created equal — between humanitarianism and egalitarianism.
Already, decisions are made in the name of science, but are they ethical? And what are the implications for the future of those who don’t measure up or those who refuse the scientific ideal?
There are questions science can’t answer. The modern American’s unwillingness to make these decisions is a decision. That leaves the decisions left in the hands of the scientists. There’s a reason for the mad scientist cliché. We should all be paying more attention.
